Subject: Questions & Answers

Completely agree that it would be much better if everyone has a chance to compete (at least within a season or two) with the top teams no matter when they join assuming they have the same skill in managing.

As someone who had teams in the top 1-2 of my country, I can tell you from my experience its actually more interesting to not be sitting so far out in front.

I have more fun and interest from soccer these days after my team got removed cause i didnt log in and i have had to start from scratch last season and teams are better than me.

I've also been been wondering why, instead of a new servers, the developers won't just make some changes to the game so that competing against the very best could actually be possible for a newbie let's say in 10 seasons if he does everything very well.

To achieve that I'd suggest multiplying the player salaries so that having a dynasty with 30 NT players and 80 players in total would not be financially profitable. Also limiting the sponsorship offers that the very top are getting would also be a way to increase the chances for more teams to be able to compete against the best.

There is a balance that PPM need to achieve here though. On one hand they want / need to keep the game as realistic as possible and on the other, they need to make it fair.

Take soccer (in the real world) for example. A newly promoted team in the EPL (ie. Southhampton) will never earn as much from sponsors or even ticket sales as a team like Manchester United. Top teams with winning records will always get better offers, more sponsors, more spectators etc.

Even in hockey in the NHL, where a salary cap exists, teams with those big winning records still attract more sponsors.

Sure but if nothing will be done to the current server, the number of managers will decrease and decrease. At the end there may not be many managers to play against.

I can't really say if the managers in the 3rd or 4th divisions think that it's impossible to reach the top because of the game mechanics or because of the lack of their skills but what I know is that I can easily spend 1 000M every season on new players while the teams at the bottom of my league have problems spending 100M. I don't think the financial difference between ManU and Southampton is that big.

I agree, the gap is far too big right now with regards to the finances. And with ppm, money often equals success.

I'm a good example of this I had some early success with my soccer team that set me up pretty well. I pretty much coasted on that since. I went 6 seasons without purchasing a starter, but I've still remained one of the top teams in the US because I have so much stinking money. It kinda sucks.

there has to be a salary cap to keep the big teamns from dominating. I have been saying this for a long time but the developers are not interested in making the game fair

Totally agree for salary cap

salary cap is imposible in ppm world. its posible in closed enviromet like NHL or NBA. putting salary cap would be same like putting salary cap to all european football teams...

Who cares if it isn't like real life European football. This isn't supposed to be exactly like real life. This is a game. We're here to have fun. We have to make it possible for great new managers to compete with the top teams in their country. I like Antsa's idea of 10 seasons. That's 3 years. A good, committed manager should be able to compete with the best in their country in 3 years. Not necessarily win, but actually compete.

As it is now, we're looking at 5-6 years to catch the top teams. And I don't even think that'll be enough. Something drastic, and maybe even a bit unfair, needs to be done to slow down the top teams.

well then how you gona compare what salary cap gona be Irish I.1 team and Slovaki I.1 team? judging by situatin now if booth teams have same cap (cos they are equal tiers) then it still doesnt make perfect system cos in Ireland lesser competiton makes superteams exist. imho better would be limit players to max 40 and no more. that would solve almost everything cos you will not have anymore space of 70 players to buy, train, sell and profit in the end.

We had a manager in Canada ([hockey_team=60443]is his team) start playing and in 5 seasons (started in season 7) was promoted from div3 to div1:

div3, div3, div2, div2, div1

I believe that a cap is possible. It would be based on the number of teams in the country and an average salary in a given league. I believe in this way that the best teams would not be able to hold 40 prospects, the best players and dominate for any period of time. They would have to jkepp balanced teams

Easiest way to have a cap would be to raise players salaries. Right now they're too low. However, I imagine they grow quite rapidly once you get the 2,000 OR players that'll be much more common after having 10+ seasons at lvl 15 TF and SA with 200 OR staff. I guess, in essence, we have a bunch of minor-league teams right now and are only starting to transition into the big-league era of player salaries.

If there was a cap, EVERY league would need to have an identical cap figure.

Else, when it comes to international cups (ie. CL, etc) teams from bigger leagues would always dominate.

So it would need to be 1 flat rate cap or none at all. Sucks, but that is the only true fair way.